{"id":23646,"date":"2026-01-05T22:55:53","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T17:25:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23646"},"modified":"2026-01-05T22:55:53","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T17:25:53","slug":"an-anova-based-comparison-of-consumer-ratings-for-selected-protein-brands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=23646","title":{"rendered":"An ANOVA-Based Comparison of Consumer Ratings for Selected Protein Brands."},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 <\/span>Title<\/span><\/u><\/b>: <\/span><\/b>An ANOVA-Based Comparison of Consumer Ratings<\/span> for Selected \u00a0<\/span>Protein Brands.<\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

Author<\/span><\/u><\/b>: <\/span><\/b>Pranay Bhalekar<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/span><\/u><\/b>:<\/span><\/b> Protein powders have become an essential nutritional supplement, widely used for muscle building, recovery, weight management, and overall fitness enhancement. With rapid advancements in sports nutrition science, consumers face a plethora of brands offering diverse formulations, protein sources, flavors, and pricing. Consequently, consumer preferences and satisfaction levels vary significantly across brands. Conducting a systematic analysis of these preferences enables a deeper evaluation of brand performance and consumer perceptions in the highly competitive protein supplement market.<\/span><\/p>\n

Objective<\/span><\/u><\/b>:<\/span><\/b> To understand consumer ratings for selected protein brand<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Literature Review<\/span><\/u><\/b>:\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Smith et al. (2019) highlight that protein supplementation has surged in popularity due to innovations in biotechnology and precision nutrition, enabling customized blends that adapt to individual metabolic needs, workout intensity, and recovery demands. These supplements, often incorporating whey isolates, plant-based hybrids, or time-release formulas, are integrated into daily routines via shakes, bars, or ready-to-drink options. Unlike traditional nutrition, modern protein products embed sensors or app-linked tracking for biomarkers like muscle protein synthesis and hydration levels. This paper introduces a smart protein shaker with embedded impedance sensors and accelerometers that monitor post-workout recovery metrics, such as muscle glycogen replenishment and inflammation markers, through non-invasive bioelectrical analysis. Signal processing occurs via a low-power microcontroller with Bluetooth connectivity, optimizing protein absorption feedback. Applications span athletic performance optimization and chronic condition management, where protein serves as both fuel and a health diagnostic tool for gym-goers and fitness enthusiasts<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Protein supplementation and self-management of fitness and body composition<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Johnson (2023) notes that protein intake has long been linked to enhanced muscle growth, fat loss, and metabolic health. Consuming protein via portable shakes during workouts or daily routines (e.g., mobile nutrition tracking) warrants special attention, as users tailor intake based on personal goals like bulking or cutting. This review synthesizes evidence on how protein aids self-management of physical fitness amid urban lifestyles, countering stressors like irregular meals, sedentary jobs, or calorie deficits. Protin blocks nutritional gaps by providing on-demand macros, restoring user control over diet amid chaotic schedules and processed food environments. It also combats gym fatigue or motivational dips, fostering adherence to routines. These gains must balance risks like overconsumption leading to digestive issues or kidney strain, yet users prioritize benefits\u2014sustained energy and progress tracking\u2014making protein a staple for daily fitness self-regulation.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Data Collection:<\/span><\/u> To understand consumer ratings for selected protein brands primary data was collected by creating google form and respondents were asked to rate each brand on a scale of 1 to 10 based on their usage experience. 50 students of ITM were surveyed and data was downloaded as excel sheet and Anova test was done on it.<\/span><\/h1>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/h1>\n

Data Analysis<\/span><\/u><\/b>:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Anova: Single Factor<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

SUMMARY<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Groups<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Count<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sum<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Average<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variance<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Atom protein<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

363<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.26<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.48<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

MB Protein<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

352<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.04<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.84<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

GNC protein<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

363<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.26<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.75<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ON protein<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

379<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.58<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.66<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ANOVA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Source of Variation<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.415<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.47<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.44<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.73<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.65<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1113.34<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

196<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.68<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1120.76<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

199<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

H0: All are same<\/span><\/p>\n

H1: Any one of this is different <\/span><\/p>\n

We observe p value as p value is greater than 0.05 accept null hypothesis (H0) meaning all are same.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion: <\/span><\/u><\/b>From data analysis it is conclude that all are same.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/p>\n

Reference<\/span><\/u><\/b>: <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Smart protein shaker for muscle recovery and nutritional monitoring<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Poulios A., Georgakouli K., Draganidis D., et al. (2019). Protein-Based Supplementation to Enhance Recovery in Team Sports: A Systematic Review.\u00a0Sports <\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

Protein supplementation and the self-management of fitness and recovery<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Morton R.W., McGlory C., and Phillips S.M. (2018). A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of the effect of protein supplementation on resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength in healthy adults.\u00a0British Journal of Sports Medicine<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 Title: An ANOVA-Based Comparison of Consumer Ratings for Selected \u00a0Protein Brands. Author: Pranay Bhalekar \u00a0 Introduction: Protein powders have become an essential nutritional supplement, widely used for muscle building, recovery, weight management, and overall fitness enhancement. With rapid advancements in sports nutrition science, consumers face a plethora of brands offering diverse formulations, protein sources,… Continue reading An ANOVA-Based Comparison of Consumer Ratings for Selected Protein Brands.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":139894,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/139894"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=23646"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23646\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23647,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23646\/revisions\/23647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=23646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=23646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=23646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}